Youths Participation in Farming Activities in Rural Areas of Imo State, Nigeria: implications for Extension

Transcription

1 Youths Participation in Farming Activities in Rural Areas of Imo State, Nigeria: implications for Extension UGWOKE, F. O., O. M. ADESOPE AND F. C. IBE Department of Agricultural Extension, Federal University Of Technology, Owerri - Imo State ABSTRACT This study investigated youths participation in fanning activities in rural areas of lino stage, Nigeria Questionnaire was administered to 70 randomly selected respondents from six rural communities in the study area. Data were analysed using percentages, ranks and Pearson correlation. The results indicated that the youths participated in a wide range of farming activities, such as bush clearing, cultivation, planting, weeding, harvesting, among others. Also, significant relationship exists between the level ofparticipation and education (r = , P< 0.05), farming experience (r = 0.254, P< 0.05), andfarm size (r = 0.267, P< 0.05). The participants perceived low capital outlay (71%) risk and uncertainty (67%), drudgery (66%), problem of land acquisition (61%), among others, as the nmjor problems that confront youths participation in farming activities in the study area. It iva.v reconunended, among others, that the youths should be given the right incentives by government to intensify their participation in farming activities. These include provision of soft loans, tractor hiring services, facilitating land acquisition, among others. The Extension Agency should also help to organize the youths into co operative groups to facilitate the above help. Also social amenities should be provided in the rural areas to encourage the youths to stay back and practice full-time and intensified agriculture in the present democratic dispensation. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Nigeria operates basically an agricultural economy with over 70% of the population actively engaged in farming at various levels (Olayide and Ogunfiditimi, 1980). Expansion of agricultural production will lead to more revenue generation and capital formation, which will improve the purchasing power of the people as well as serve as incentive for industrial development. Overall food production seems to be declining over the years while the population keeps growing. Hence, with rapid increase in population growth, the gap between food demand and supply continues to widen in Nigeria (Ijere, 1992). So many factors are believed to have contributed to this undesirable situation. Such factors include inadequate capital, land acquisition and usage, use of traditional tools, inadequate extension services, rural-urban migration, poor rural infrastructure, pests and diseases outbreak, poor methods of processing, inadequate storage facilities, social and political instability, low returns, manpower (youth involvement), among others. Expansion of agricultural production could be achieved partly if these odds are greatly reduced and agriculture made not only viable but enviable. This could encourage the youth to competitively get involved in agricultural production. The need to produce large quantities of food for our large and constantly growing population requires urgent attention especially by the government. It was in pursuance of this that the then Military Government of Rivers State launched the school-to-land (agricultural-based) programme in The programme not only created a career opportunity for young school leavers (youth) but also increased food production, which to an extent, reduced the gap between food production and its demand in the country. Swanson and Claar (1984) noted that it is important to clarify and align extension objectives at the policy level, so that they reflect die overall agricultural development goals of the country concerned. The overall agriculture policy of Nigeria now is to harness all available resources to increase agricultural productivity and rural income. For effective and progressive agricultural development, an active work force is required. To attain this, the active group of individuals needs to be exploited favourably. This group of people is the youth. Youth is a state or time of being young, a transition between childhood and adulthood. It is characterized by energy, intelligence and hope-attributes that enable youths to improve their knowledge and capabilities for development, and which partly compensate for the seeming handicaps of limited access to economic assets such as land (Eremie, 2002). When the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1985 as the 136

2 Journal of Agricultural Extension International Youth Year, they established the criterion for youth, for statistical purposes, as a young person between the ages of 15 and 24 years. However, Perez-Morales (1996) noted that in some developing countries, this range goes up to 30 years of age. He pointed out that no matter what the age range may be, the point is that anytime we talk and think about youth, it implies a group of young people in a society who have a lot of energy, new ideas, new ways to see life and face problems. Eremie (2002) further noted that the age limit ascribed to youth varies from country to country. In Nigeria where adverse economic conditions in recent years have strongly influenced natural growth, many people remain youth up to 35 years of age. Perez-Morales (1996) further pointed out that important differences exist between rural and urban youths, which have policy implications. He noted that there is a trend for rural youth to start work responsibilities at an earlier age than urban youth. A significant percentage of rural youth become economically active at the relatively young age of 10 or 12. Also, normally, young people in rural areas get married-earlier than their peers in urban zones. It means that rural youth become involved in adult responsibilities before urban youths. Worldwide, it is estimated that there were 1,200 million youths in year 2000, 53% of who live in rural areas (FAO, 1996). The youth dominate in Nigeria. Of the estimated population of 115 million in 2000, 45% fell in the 0-14 year age bracket and 46% in the year bracket and the medium age of the population is 17.5 years (UN system in Nigeria, 2001). According to Ekong (2003), the youths constitute a formidable force for community and national development. They have been part of he overall agricultural development process in Nigeria because of the immense contribution of agriculture to the economy. Adesope (1999) reported active participation of youths in community development activities of which agriculture is a part. Jibowo and Sotomi (1996) noted youth s active involvement in agricultural programmes. Also Roy (2003) identified agricultural activities such as vegetable and arable crop farming as areas where youths prefer to acquire training. The various views reported above point to the fact that youths are involved in agricultural activities generally. Arokoyo (1992) suggested the need to harness this rural resource for meaningful level of rural development to be achieved. A critical challenge for sustainable agricultural and rural development in Nigeria is, therefore, the mobilization of the large numbers of youth as active participants in the developmental process. The pertinent questions here are: To what extent do youths participate in agricultural production activities in the study area; Is there any significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the youths and their participation, and what are the factors that constrain youths from effective participation in agricultural production in the study area? The focus of the study was to examine youths participation in farming activities in rural areas of Imo State. However, the specific objectives were to: determine the level of youth participation in agricultural production activities, ascertain the relationship between socio-economic characteristics of youths and their participation in farming activities and, identify constraints to youth participation in agricultural production in the study area. Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the youths and their level of participation in agricultural production activities. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The population of the study comprised the rural youths in the study area that were engaged in farming activities during the study. Two Local Government Areas, namely Owerri West and Owerri North were purposively selected from Owerri Agricultural Zone because of their high agricultural activities. Three communities each, were randomly selected from each of the two Local Government Areas, thus making a total of six communities. Twelve rural youths who were involved in agricultural activities during the study were also randomly sampled from each community with the help of Field Extension Agents of Imo ADP. Hence a total of 72 rural youths were sampled. Data were collected using structured questionnaire and interview schedule administered to 72 randomly selected respondents. However, data from only 70 usable copies of questionnaire were used for analysis. Variable for analysis included the following: Age (measured in years), Education (number of years in school), Farming experience (in years), farm size (hectares), household size (number of persons in household), nature of participation (part-time = 1; full-time = 2), and level of participation (number of hours 137

3 spent on farming per day). Data analysis was carried out through the use of frequency counts, percentages, ranking and Pearson correlation 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1: Distribution of respondents by personal and socio-economic characteristics, n = 70 Variables f % Age (years) < Education No formal education Primary Secondary Higher education Gender Male Female Marital Status Singe Married Widowed Household size and above Farm size (ha) <1 ha 1-2 ha 2 ha and above Farming Experience (years) < 5 years and above Nature of participation Full-time Part-time Type of farming Practiced Crop production Animal production Mixed farming Source: Field Survey,

4 Table 1 shows that about half of the respondents (50.0 percent) were between 31 and 40 years while 44.3 percent were between 21 and 30 years. Only 5.7 percent were less than 20 years old. About 73.0percent of the youths sampled had either secondary or tertiary education. This is important, as it will likely enhance the adoption of modern farm technologies. Most of the respondents were females. Also about 53.0 percent were either married or widowed. This tends to agree with the assertion of Perez-Morales (1996) who noted that young people in rural areas get married earlier than their peers in the urban zones and also become involved in adult responsibilities before urban youths. Results also revealed that a high proportion of the respondents (48.0 percent) belong to household size of The findings also show that 50.0 percent of the respondents had farm size of less than lha. This is expected, since most farmers operate on relatively small scale. The field results also showed that about 19.0 percent have had farming experience of 16 years and above. Generally, 67.0 percent had reasonable experience in farming activities. Majority of the youths interviewed (67.5 percent) were part-time farmers, while only 34.3 percent were full-time farmers. Field data also showed that majority of the rural youths (53% engaged in mixed farming as against planting only arable crops (37.0 percent) or rearing only farm animals (lo.opercent). The high proportion of respondents in mixed farming may be to ensure against crop or livestock failure. It also keeps the farmer busy almost all the year round. Table 2: Distribution of respondents by level of participation in farming (hours per day) Hours per day < 4 hours 4-8 hours > 8 hours Source: Field Survey, f % , Table 2 shows that majority of the respondents (74.3 percent) spend an average of 4-8 hours on the farm per day, while 18.6 percent spend less than 4 hours on the farm per day. Only 7.1 percent spend more than 8 hours on the farm per day. The implication of this is that majority of the youth spend moderate number of hours in the farm per day. Table 3: Distribution of respondents by their involvement in farming activities Farm Activities Bush clearing Cultivation Planting Weeding Fertilizer application Harvesting Processing Feeding livestock Vaccination Sanitation Breeding Sales responses Source: Field data, Percent (%)* Table 3 shows that the youths in the study area participated in most farming operations, especially bush clearing (81.0 percent), cultivation (83.0 percent), Planting (84.0 percent), weeding (79.0 percent) and harvesting (74.0 percent), among others. This tends to agree with the findings of Adesope (1999), Jibowo and Sotomi (1996) and Roy (2003) who reported active involvement of the youths in agricultural activities. 139

5 The implication of the above findings is that what the youths need is the right incentives to improve on production, since the zeal to participate is there. Table 4: Problems confronting youth participation in the study Area Perceived problem Low capital outlay Risk and uncertainty Drudgery Land acquisition Poor yield Social amenities Farm location Parental restriction Source: Field survey, Serious Rank Not serious Rank % , Table 4 reveals the problems constraining youths participation in farming as perceived by the respondents. Low capital outlay was ranked first (70.0 percent) as the greatest problem confronting the youths in the study area. This was followed by risk and uncertainty (67.0 percent), drudgery (65.3 percent), land acquisition (61.4 percent), among others. The problems ranked low as affecting participation include: parental restriction (20.0 percent) and farm location (32.8 percent). Table 5: Correlation analysis showing the relationship between socio-economic factors and youths level of participation Variables Age Education Farming experience Farm size (ha) Household size Nature of participation Significant at 0.05 level Source: Field survey, Table 5 shows that education (r = , P<0.05), farm size (r = 0.267, P<0.05) and household size (r = Q.271, P<0.05) significantly influenced youths participation in farming activities, while age and nature of participation have no significant relationship with participation in farming activities among the youths surveyed. Education was negatively correlated with participation in farming. This implies that respondents with lower levels of education tend to participate more in farming activities and vice versa. This could be due to drudgery associated with farming. Farming experience (number of years engaged in farming) correlated positively with participation, implying that higher farming experience enhanced participation of respondents in farming activities. Farm size also correlated positively with participation. This implies that respondents with large farm size would likely participate favourably in farming activities. Also household size correlated positively with participation in farming, implying that youths from larger households tend to participate more in farming activities than those with smaller households. This is expected, since more hands would be needed in the farm. Implications for Extension r-values * 0.259* 0.267* 0.271* p - values Swanson and Claar (1984) noted that it is important to clarify and align extension objectives at the policy level so that they reflect the overall agricultural development goals of the country concerned. The overall 140

6 Journal of Agricultural Extension agriculture policy of Nigeria now is to harness all available resources to increase agricultural productivity and rural income. This will of course, help to alleviate rural poverty and improve the standard of living of the rural dwellers. One sure way of achieving this is to target and encourage the rural youths to play more active role in agricultural production activities. Therefore, to achieve a broad-based agricultural development, extension and other agricultural administrators should focus on the technological and socio economic needs of all categories of farmers, especially the youths. This is because they constitute a formidable force in, not only agricultural production but community and national development (Ekong, 2003). Greater efforts should therefore, be geared towards encouraging the rural youths to form organized groups so as to facilitate access to loans granted by both governmental and non-governmental agencies, access to farm land, tractor-hiring services, among others. This will also ensure easy accessibility in organizing seminars for them and also provision of other extension packages., The overall effect will be increased participation of the rural youths in agricultural activities and eventual alleviation of rural poverty in the present democratic dispensation. 4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rural youths constitute a formidable force in agricultural production. This work examined youths participation in agricultural production in rural areas of Imo State, Nigeria. The youths were found to engage in various farming activities like bush clearing, cultivation, planting, among others. Results showed that significant relationship exists between their level of participation and education, household size and farm size. The participants perceived low capital outlay, risks and uncertainty, drudgery, among others, as major constraints to youths participation in farming activities in the study area. It is recommended that the youths should be given the right incentives by government to intensify their participation in farming activities. Such incentives include: provision of soft loans, tractor hiring services, facilitating land acquisition, among others. These can be facilitated by the Extension Agency helping to organize the youths into co-operative groups.' Also government and other Agencies should intensify the provision of amenities in rural areas to make life more comfortable for the youths. These will not only encourage them to stay back, but stimulate greater participation in full-time farming and hence help in bettering the economy in the present democratic dispensation. REFERENCES Adesope, O.M. (1999). Evaluation of Youth Participation in community Development Projects in River state, Nigeria Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, FUTO. Arokoyo. I. (1992). How to Reach and Work with Rural Youths. Proceedings of National Workshop on Extension Strategies for Reaching Rural Youths, NARELS, Zaria, July Ekong, E.E. (2003). An Introduction to Rural Sociology (2nd ed.) Dove Educational Publishers, Uyo, Nigeria. Eremie, S. (2002). Youth; a Strong Hold for Sustainable Agricultural Extension Delivery and Development. Proceedings of the 8th Annual National Conference of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria held at Benin City, 17th - 19th September FAO (1996). Expert Consultations on Extension Rural Youth Programmes and Sustainable Development, Agricultural Extension and Education Services, Research Extension and Training Division, Rome. Ijere, M. O. (1992). Leading Issues in Nigeria Rural Development, C.R.D.C., University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Jibowo, A. A. and Sotomi, A. O. (1996). The Youth in Sustainable Rural Development. A Study of Youth Programme in Odeda Local Government Area of Ogun state, Nigeria, In Adedoyin, S.F. and Ilonsu, J.O.Y. (eds). Sustainable Development in Rural Nigeria, Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of Nigeria Rural Sociological Association. Olayide, S. O. and Ogunfiditimi, T.I.O. (1980) Agricultural Extension and Nigerian Small farmers In: Olayide, S. O. et al (eds.) Nigerian Small Farmers Problems and Prospects in Integrated Rural Development, Ibadan, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 141

7 Perez-Morales R. (1996) Youth Policy and Resources Related to Rural Youth Programmes, in Expert consultation on Extension Rural Youth Programmes and Sustainable Development FAO, Rome. Pp Roy, S. (2003). Listening to Rural Youths, Determining the Training Needs of Future Citizens, Journal of Extension Systems Vol. 19 No. 1, pp Swanson, B.. E. and Claar, J. B. (1984). The History and Development of Agricultural Extension. In Swanson, B. E. (ed.) Agricultural Extension; a Reference Manual (2nd Edition) FAO, Rome. United Nations System in Nigeria (2002), Common Country Assessment, Lagos, Nigeria. 142